RSS
Navigating Israel’s Nuclear ‘Samson Option’
In any rationality-based strategic calculus, the “Samson Option” — which refers to an Israeli nuclear strike — would refer not to a last-resort act of national vengeance, but to a persuasive limit on existential threats.
When taken together with Israel’s intentionally ambiguous nuclear strategy, an outdated doctrine commonly referred to as “deliberate nuclear ambiguity” or “Israel’s bomb in the basement” (amimut in Hebrew), more compelling threat postures could prove effective. To be truly promising, however, an Israeli Samson Option would need to 1) coincide with an incremental and selective end to “deliberate nuclear ambiguity” and 2) pertain to Iran directly, not just to terrorist proxies.
There are no conceivable circumstances in which Samson could offer Israel useful applications regarding Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, or any other jihadist foes.
Israeli strategists will need to consider factors beyond what is taking place right now between Israel and its jihadist adversaries. Since military crises in other parts of the world could spill over into the Middle East, strategic planners should begin to clarify Israel’s operational preparations regarding Samson. This is especially the case where a spill-over could involve the threat or actual use of nuclear weapons.
Though Iran is still “only” pre-nuclear, it already has the capacity to use radiation dispersal weapons and/or launch conventional rockets at Israel’s Dimona nuclear reactor. Moreover, Tehran has close ties to Pyongyang, and it is not inconceivable that a nuclear North Korea might operate as a strategic stand-in for a not-yet-nuclear Iran.
For disciplined Israeli strategists, geopolitical context matters. There can be no logic-based assessment of probabilities because the events under consideration would be unprecedented. In logic and mathematics, true probabilities can never be ascertained out of nothing. They can be drawn only from the determinable frequency of pertinent past events.
These are not narrowly political or intuitive calculations. As an operationally meaningful concept, the Samson Option references a residual deterrence doctrine founded upon credible threats (whether implicit or explicit) of overwhelming nuclear retaliation or counter-retaliation. These are unconventional threats to thwart more-or-less expected enemy state aggressions. Reasonably, any such massive last-resort doctrine could enter into force only where enemy aggressions would imperil Israel’s continued existence as a viable nation-state. In the absence of expected aggressions from Iran, Israel would more prudently rely upon an “escalation ladder.”
For doctrinal clarity, Israel’s nuclear forces should always remain oriented to deterrence ex ante, never to revenge ex post. It would do Israel little good to proffer Samson-level threats in response to “ordinary” or less than massive forms of enemy attack. Even where the principal operational object for Israel would be counter-terrorist success against Hamas, Hezbollah, etc., invoking Samson could make sense only vis-à-vis Hamas state patron Iran or Iran’s nuclear patron North Korea. In such nuanced calculations, assumptions of rationality could prove problematic.
For Israel’s nuclear deterrent to work against a still non-nuclear Iran, it is virtually inconceivable that it would need to include a Samson Option. In any crisis between Israel and Iran involving jihadist terror, Israel could almost certainly achieve “escalation dominance” without employing Samson. But if Iran were already an authentic nuclear adversary, its capacity to enhance surrogate terror capabilities would exceed any pre-nuclear constraints of competitive risk-taking. In these circumstances, Samson could prove necessary.
Israel’s basis for launching a preemptive strike against Iran without Samson could be rational only before that state turned verifiably nuclear. A foreseeable non-Samson plan for preemption would involve more direct Iranian involvement in the continuing terror war against Israel on behalf of Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. By setting back Iranian nuclear efforts and infrastructures, such pre-Samson involvement could offer Israel an asymmetrical power advantage in the region. This larger opportunity would be the result of Israel’s not yet having to fear a nuclear war against Iran.
There would be related matters of intra-crisis communications. As an element of any ongoing strategic dialogue, the basic message of an Israeli Samson Option would need to remain uniform and consistent. It should signal to an adversary state the unstated promise of a counter-city (“counter value”) nuclear reprisal. Israel would also need to avoid signaling to its Iranian adversary any sequential gradations of nuclear warfighting.
Israel’s “bottom line” reasoning would likely be as follows: For Israel, exercising a Samson Option threat is not apt to deter any Iranian aggressions short of nuclear and/or massively large-scale conventional (including biological) first strikes. Therefore, Samson can do little to prevent Iran from its enthusiastic support of anti-Israel jihadists.
Whatever the Samson Option’s precise goals, its key objective should remain constant and conspicuous. This objective is to keep Israel “alive,” not (as presented in Biblical imagery) to stop the Jewish State from “dying alone.” In this peremptory objective, Israeli policy should deviate from the Biblical Samson narrative.
Ultimately, Samson, in all relevant military nuclear matters, should be about how best to manage urgent processes of strategic dissuasion. At least for now, Israel’s presumed nuclear strategy, though not yet clearly articulated, is oriented toward nuclear war avoidance and not to nuclear war fighting. From all standpoints, this represents Israel’s only correct orientation.
The Samson Option could never protect Israel as a comprehensive nuclear strategy by itself. This option should never be confused with Israel’s more generalized or “broad spectrum” nuclear strategy, one that would seek to maximize deterrence at incrementally less apocalyptic levels of military engagement.
At this point, various questions will need to be raised. Above all: How can the Samson Option best serve Israel’s general strategic requirements? Though the primary mission of Israel’s nuclear weapons should be to preserve the Jewish State — not to wreak havoc upon foes when all else has seemingly been lost — obvious preparations for a Samson Option could still improve Israel’s nuclear deterrence and preemption capabilities.
As soon as possible, even during the current Gaza war with Hamas, Jerusalem will need to shift from “deliberate nuclear ambiguity” to “selective nuclear disclosure.” Among other things, this explicit shift would allow Israel to clarify that its nuclear weapons are not too large for actual operational use against Iran. In essence, this complex clarification would be the reciprocal of Israel’s Samson Option and would cover the complete spectrum of Israel’s nuclear deterrence options.
There will be corresponding legal issues. Israeli resorts to conventional and defensive first strikes could prove permissible or law-enforcing under authoritative international law. In such cases, Israeli preemptions would contain a jurisprudential counterpart to nuclear weapons use. This counterpart should be referenced formally as “anticipatory self-defense.”
Concerning long-term Israeli nuclear deterrence, recognizable preparations for a Samson Option could help convince Iran or other designated enemy states that massive aggressions against Israel would never be gainful. This could prove most compelling if Israel’s “Samson weapons” were 1) coupled with some explicit level of nuclear disclosure (thereby effectively ending Israel’s longstanding posture of nuclear ambiguity); 2) recognizably invulnerable to enemy first strikes; and 3) “counter-city”/”counter-value” in declared mission function. Additionally, in view of what nuclear strategists sometimes refer to as the “rationality of pretended irrationality,” Samson could enhance Israeli nuclear deterrence by demonstrating a more evident Israeli willingness to take existential risks.
On occasion, the nuclear deterrence benefits of “pretended irrationality” could depend on prior Iranian awareness of Israel’s counter-city or counter-value targeting posture. Such a posture was recommended some 20 years ago by the Project Daniel Group in its confidential report to then Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon. Residually, however, to best ensure that Israel could still engage in nuclear warfighting if its counter-value nuclear deterrence were to fail, Israel would more openly adopt a “mixed” counter-value/counter-force nuclear targeting doctrine.
In reference to strategies of preemption, Israeli preparations for a Samson Option — explicit, recognizable and not just sotto voce — could help convince Israel’s leadership that defensive first strikes could sometimes be gainful.
In all cases involving Samson and Israeli nuclear deterrence, visible last-resort nuclear preparations could enhance Israel’s preemption options by underscoring a bold national willingness to take existential risks. However, displaying such risks could become a double-edged sword. The fact that these are uncharted waters and there exist no precedents from which to extrapolate science-based probabilities means Israel would need to move with determination and caution.
What about “pretended irrationality?” That complex calculus could become a related part of Samson. Israel’s leaders will need to remain mindful of this integration. Brandished too “irrationally,” Israeli preparations for a Samson Option, though unwitting, could encourage Iranian preemptions. This peril would be underscored by pressures on both Israel and Iran to achieve intra-crisis “escalation dominance.” Also significant in this unpredictable environment of competitive risk-taking would be either or both sides’ deployment of expanding missile defenses.
This hearkens back to the early days of Cold War nuclear deterrence between the United States and the Soviet Union, days of “mutually assured destruction” or MAD. Either Israeli or Iranian efforts to reduce nuclear retaliatory force vulnerabilities could incentivize the other to more hurriedly strike first; that is, to “preempt the preemption.” In reference to international law, close attention would then need to be directed toward the peremptory rules of “military necessity.”
If left to itself, neither deterred nor preempted, Iran could threaten to bring the Jewish State face-to-face with Dante’s Inferno. Such a portentous scenario has been made more credible by the recent strategic strengthening of Iran by its tighter alignment with North Korea and its surrogate fighters in Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen. At some not-too-distant point, a coordinated Iran-Hezbollah offensive (complementing the Iran-Hamas offensive in Gaza) could signal more imminent existential perils for Israel. By definition, all such synergistic intersections would be taking place within the broadly uncertain context of “Cold War II.”
In extremis atomicum, these hazards could become so unique and formidable that employing a Samson Option would represent the only available strategic option for Israel. In the best of all possible worlds, Israel would have no need to augment or even maintain its arsenal of deterrent threat options – especially untested nuclear components – but this ideal reconfiguration of world politics remains a long way off. In that ideal world, Israel could anticipate the replacement of realpolitik (power politics) with Westphalian international politics. Such a replacement would be based on the awareness that planet Earth is an inter-dependent and organic whole.
Plainly, the time for such replacement has not yet arrived. It follows that Jerusalem will need to prepare visibly for a possible Samson Option. The point of this doctrinal imperative would not be to give preference to any actual applications of Samson, but to best ensure that Israel could deter all survival-threatening enemy aggressions.
For the moment, Israel remains in protracted war with Hamas. It can succeed in this conflict only by weakening jihadist state-sponsor Iran. In the best-case scenario, Iran would remain non-nuclear and Israeli management of Iranian terror support would remain within the bounds of conventional deterrence. If, however, Iran were permitted to cross the nuclear weapons threshold by acquiring chain-reaction nuclear weapons (not just radiation dispersal weapons), Israel’s subsequent efforts at deterrence of Iran would become vastly more problematic. At that point, ipso facto, Israel could require a Samson Option to maintain its “escalation dominance.”
There does exist an intermediate, if paradoxical, scenario for Israel. If Iran should become involved in any direct military action against Israel before becoming a fully nuclear adversary, the Jewish State could find itself with a strategic and law-enforcing opportunity to preemptively destroy Iranian nuclear infrastructures before they become operational. Though advancing such a scenario could also create the false impression of planned Israeli aggression, it would more correctly represent permissible self-defense. Most importantly, of course, such an Israeli preemption could prevent a full-scale nuclear war with Iran.
How should Israel navigate chaos? Whether in the Old Testament or in more-or-less synchronous Greek and Roman thought, chaos can be understood as something potentially positive: an intellectual tabula rasa which, if thoughtfully “filled in,” can prepare the world for all possibilities, both sacred and profane. In essence, chaos can represent an inchoate place from which an expanding civilizational opportunity can still originate.
Such thinking is unorthodox, to be sure, but for Israel it could prove manifestly useful. With such thinking, chaos is never just a “predator” that swallows everything whole: omnivorous, callous, indiscriminate, and without higher purpose. Here, chaos is considered instead as an auspicious “openness,” a protean realm from within which new kinds of opportunity can be revealed.
This means the chaos in the Middle East need not necessarily be interpreted by Israel’s senior military planners as a harbinger of further regional violence and instability. In some hard-to-conceptualize respects, at least, such chaos could represent a condition for national security and survival. Though there are still rough seas ahead, their waves could be harnessed for a purposeful strategic direction.
Louis René Beres, Emeritus Professor of International Law at Purdue, is the author of many books and articles dealing with nuclear strategy and nuclear war, including Apocalypse: Nuclear Catastrophe in World Politics (University of Chicago Press, 1980) and Security or Armageddon: Israel’s Nuclear Strategy (D.C. Heath/Lexington, 1986). His twelfth book, Surviving Amid Chaos: Israel’s Nuclear Strategy, was published by Rowman and Littlefield in 2016. A version of this article was originally published by The BESA Center.
The post Navigating Israel’s Nuclear ‘Samson Option’ first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
UK Muslim Groups Reject Interfaith Pact With Jewish Leaders Because Chief Rabbi Is a ‘Zionist’
The signing of the Drumlanrig Accords at Buckingham Palace. Photo: Screenshot
A coalition of Muslim organizations in the United Kingdom has rejected a recently announced Muslim-Jewish reconciliation agreement aimed at improving relations between the two communities, condemning the landmark pact over the involvement of British Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis, who they denounced as a “staunch Zionist.”
In a joint statement, more than 25 Muslim groups, including Friends of Al Aqsa and The Cordoba Foundation, expressed strong opposition to the Drumlanrig Accords over Mirvis’s support for Israel. They also argued that the agreement, which was drafted in January and signed last month, lacked legitimate representation as it was backed by “self-appointed” Muslim leaders who do not represent the will of the Muslim community.
The signatories “failed to consult widely with grassroot organizations supported by the Muslim community before they signed these accords with the chief rabbi, who is a staunch Zionist,” the statement said.
“Rabbi Mirvis has supported Israel’s war on the Palestinians in Gaza,” the coalition continued, before citing debunked casualty figures supplied by Hamas-controlled authorities. “We cannot in good faith acknowledge these accords when the chief rabbi has made public statements supporting Israel despite the horrific actions of the Israeli Occupation Forces.”
In January, representatives of 11 denominations from Judaism and Islam met at Drumlanrig Castle in Scotland to agree to a pact aimed at improving relations between the two faiths. The signatories said the accords were designed to unite the Jewish and Muslim communities in Britain to “help tackle both antisemitism and Islamophobia, as well as poverty and isolation,” while promoting mutual respect and solidarity.
Jewish and Muslim leaders formally signed the agreement last month and presented it to Britain’s King Charles III at Buckingham Palace in London.
“The Drumlanrig Accords represent a bold first step toward rebuilding a meaningful trust between Muslim and Jewish communities over the long term,” Mirvis said in a statement following the signing of the accords. “They do not gloss over our differences; they acknowledge them.”
“They also send out a powerful message that in times of division, when it is far easier to retreat into fear and suspicion, we are prepared to take the more challenging path to reconciliation,” he continued. “We do so not because it is easy, but because it is necessary.”
In their statement released earlier this week, Muslim leaders explained they would only accept and support the accords if the UK’s chief rabbi condemns the “genocide and apartheid being enacted against the Palestinian people,” welcoming a collective multi-faith movement against oppression.
“Until then, we wholly reject these accords made purportedly on behalf of the Muslim community,” the coalition said. “A central facet of Islam is the complete rejection of oppression. As a community, we do not shy away from rejecting oppression in all its forms against anyone.”
The statement did not acknowledge Hamas’s widely recognized military strategy of embedding its terrorists within Gaza’s civilian population and commandeering civilian facilities like hospitals, schools, and mosques to run operations and direct attacks.
In Monday’s statement, the groups also argued that the Muslim leaders who signed the accords were “self-appointed” and do not represent the wider British Muslim community, but rather they only speak for a small minority.
“These self-appointed Muslims were fully aware that they only represent a small minority of the overall British Muslim population,” the statement read. “The majority of the British Muslim community do not even know who these individual Muslim ‘leaders’ are. Their actions and decisions were made independently without consulting the wider Muslim community.”
According to their statement, these Muslim groups would be “wholly supportive” of interfaith relations if carried out in good faith.
“We note the significant rise in anti-Muslim hatred within the Jewish community and support engagement on challenging hatred in all its forms,” the signatories said.
The signing of the accords came amid an ongoing surge in antisemitic crimes across the UK since the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, invasion of and massacre across southern Israel, amid the ensuing war in Gaza.
Last month, the Community Security Trust (CST), a nonprofit charity that advises Britain’s Jewish community on security matters, released data showing the UK experienced its second worst year ever for antisemitism in 2024, despite recording an 18 percent drop in antisemitic incidents from the previous year’s all-time high.
In one of the latest incidents, a visibly Jewish man in England was brutally attacked after a prayer service, leaving him fearing for his eyesight, with local police investigating the assault as a hate crime.
Hamas-led Palestinian terrorists started the war in Gaza when they murdered 1,200 people and kidnapped 251 hostages during their invasion of and massacre across southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023. Israel responded with a military campaign aimed at freeing the hostages and dismantling Hamas’s military and governing capabilities in neighboring Gaza.
In January, both sides reached a ceasefire and hostage-release deal brokered by Egypt and Qatar with the support of the United States.
The post UK Muslim Groups Reject Interfaith Pact With Jewish Leaders Because Chief Rabbi Is a ‘Zionist’ first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Legal Nonprofit Launches Civil Rights Blitz Against Campus Antisemitism in California
Illustrative: A pro-Hamas demonstrator uses a megaphone on the one-year anniversary of Hamas’s Oct. 7 attack, amid the ongoing Israel-Hamas conflict, in New York City, US, Oct. 7, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Mike Segar
The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law has launched a legal blitz in California, announcing on Thursday that it filed three federal civil rights complaints against California State Polytechnic, Humboldt (Cal Poly), Scripps College, and the Etiwanda School District in San Bernardino County.
“While an increasing number of schools recognize that their Jewish students are being targeted both for their religious beliefs and due to their ancestral connection to Israel, and are taking necessary steps to address both classic and contemporary forms of antisemitism, some shamefully continue to turn a blind eye,” Brandeis Center founder and chairman Kenneth Marcus said in a statement announcing the actions. “The law and the federal government recognize Jews share a common faith and they are a people with a shared history and heritage rooted in the land of Israel.”
According to the Brandeis Center, the three complaints are being supported by several co-litigants — with Jewish on Campus (JOC) being a party to the Cal Poly complaint; the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and Arnold & Porter LLP to the Scripps College complaint; and StandWithUs and the ADL to the Etiwanda School District complaint.
Cal Poly is accused of allowing Jewish students to be subjected to “vicious antisemitism,” standing down while pro-Hamas activists doused them in fake blood and committed other acts of intimidation, such as antisemitic graffiti and hate speech. Rather than correcting the hostile environment, the Brandeis Center and JOC alleged, the university recommended that those being targeted hide any indicators of their Jewishness and even terminated their participation in a club fair as an alternative to disciplining a pro-Hamas student who physically harassed them at the event.
At Scripps College, in Claremont, California, a Jewish student was allegedly ordered to remove her Star of David and routinely taunted with antisemitic tropes accusing Jews of being “immoral,” rapacious, and exercising “control” over media. Living openly as a Jewish woman has become an unrelenting tribulation for this student, the Brandeis Center and Arnold & Peter added, noting that she has seen her social network collapse due to her attending Shabbat dinners and “studying Torah with the campus rabbi.” In addition to allegedly neglecting to respond to these indignities, Scripps has been accused of showing further disregard for the civil rights of Jewish students by helping pro-Hamas agitators evade accountability for behaviors such as vandalism. The situation, the groups said, has prompted many Jewish students to leave the country to participate in study abroad programs rather than remain on campus.
The Etiwanda school district case recounts the experience of a 12-year-old Jewish girl who was allegedly assaulted on school grounds — being beaten with a stick — told to “shut your Jewish ass up,” and teased with jokes about Hitler. According to the court filings, one student said such behavior would have never happened were she not Jewish. Despite receiving a slew of complaints about the discriminatory treatment, a substantial amount of which occurred in the classroom, school officials have allegedly eschewed punishing her tormentors.
The Algemeiner has reached out to Cal Poly, Scripps College, and the Etiwanda school district for comment and will update this story if they respond.
Cal Poly told the Lost Coast Outpost, a local media outlet, that it is “reviewing the federal complaint and will, of course, fully cooperate with the [US Department of Education’s] Office of Civil Rights in any investigation.” The school added, “Hatred or discrimination in any form, including antisemitism, is contrary to our core values. The university unequivocally condemns all acts of hatred, bigotry, and violence, and we are committed to keeping safe our students, staff, and faculty of all religions. We will continue to work together to foster a learning and working environment where we can all feel safe, included, and respected.”
According to leading voices behind the federal complaints, administrators at many educational institutions are not doing enough to combat anti-Jewish discrimination.
“Too many of our nation’s young minds are being corrupted by the disease of antisemitism. It is the duty of K-12 educators and administrators to provide the necessary education to inoculate them — not indoctrinate them,” StandWithUs chief executive officer and founder Roz Rothstein said in a statement. “As long as students continue to find themselves on the receiving end of anti-Jewish hate and bigotry from their peers or teachers, and their appeals to administration continue to fall on deaf ears, we will continue to show up and support them in holding their schools accountable.”
The ADL’s vice president of national litigation, James Pasch, added, “ADL and our partners will not sit idly by as Jewish students are attacked for their identity — from our college campuses to our K-12 schools, our educational institutions have an obligation to protect their Jewish students and ensure that all its students receive an education free of harassment and discrimination.”
The Brandeis Center has spearheaded litigation for dozens of complaints of antisemitism in recent years, taking on large, powerful institutions, as well as lesser-known ones, across the US. Recently, it achieved the pausing of the Santa Ana Unified School District’s (SAUSD) implementation of an ethnic studies curriculum that, according to the lawsuit, district leaders in California intentionally hid from the Jewish community to conceal its antisemitic content.
Just weeks prior, the Brandies Center negotiated the resolution of a lawsuit which accused Harvard University of violating the rights of Jewish students by failing to discipline a professor whom a third-party firm had deemed guilty of mistreating Jewish students.
The organization’s legal actions further its mission to combat antisemitism in educational institutions, Marcus noted in Thursday’s press release, saying, “Schools that continue to ignore either aspect of Jewish identity are becoming dangerous breeding grounds for escalating anti-Jewish bigotry, and they must be held accountable.”
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
The post Legal Nonprofit Launches Civil Rights Blitz Against Campus Antisemitism in California first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Hamas Dismisses Trump Threat, Says Hostages Will Only Be Released With Lasting Ceasefire
US President Donald speaking in the Roosevelt Room at the White House in Washington, DC on March 3, 2025. Photo: Leah Millis via Reuters Connect
Hamas on Thursday dismissed US President Donald Trump’s latest threat against the Palestinian terrorist group, saying it will only release the remaining Israeli hostages in Gaza with a lasting ceasefire.
The “best path to free the remaining Israeli hostages” is through negotiations on a second phase of the ceasefire agreement, Hamas spokesman Abdel-Latif al-Qanoua said.
The first phase of the truce, which lasted 42 days, ended on Saturday. During that time, fighting stopped between Israel and Hamas as the former withdrew some forces from Gaza. Meanwhile, Hamas released 25 living Israeli hostages and the bodies of eight more in exchange for nearly 2,000 Palestinian prisoners, many of whom were serving lengthy sentences for terrorist activity.
Only limited preparatory talks have been held so far regarding a second phase of the ceasefire, which could include a permanent truce, full Israeli military withdrawal from Gaza, and release of the remaining living hostages in exchange for more Palestinian prisoners. However, the future of the deal is in doubt, as both sides disagree on how to proceed.
Negotiations were further complicated by Trump, who on Wednesday posted a statement on his social media platform Truth Social in which he issued an ultimatum to Hamas.
“‘Shalom Hamas’ means Hello and Goodbye – You can choose,” the president’s post began. “Release all of the Hostages now, not later, and immediately return all of the dead bodies of the people you murdered, or it is OVER for you. Only sick and twisted people keep bodies, and you are sick and twisted!”
Trump added that he is “sending Israel everything it needs to finish the job,” and that “not a single Hamas member will be safe if you don’t do as I say.”
The US president then noted that he met earlier in the day with several former hostages who were released from Hamas captivity.
“I have just met with your former Hostages whose lives you have destroyed. This is your last warning! For the leadership, now is the time to leave Gaza, while you still have a chance,” Trump said
He also warned that Gazans could be killed if they assisted Hamas in detaining Israeli hostages. Several of the hostages freed from Gaza were held by families with connections to the Hamas terrorist group. These hostages reportedly experienced physical and psychological violence while being held in captivity.
“Also, to the People of Gaza: A beautiful Future awaits, but not if you hold Hostages. If you do, you are DEAD! Make a SMART decision. RELEASE THE HOSTAGES NOW, OR THERE WILL BE HELL TO PAY LATER,” Trump wrote.
Beyond calling for the second phase of the ceasefire deal, Hamas also responded to Trump’s threat by arguing that it would embolden Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
“Such positions are what give the war criminal Netanyahu the strength and ability to continue his crimes,” Hamas spokesman Salama Maroof said on Thursday.
Another spokesman for the terrorist group, Hazem Qassem, reportedly added, “Trump’s threats complicate matters related to the ceasefire agreement and push the occupation’s [Israel’s] government to become more radical. If Trump cares about releasing the occupation’s hostages, he should pressure Netanyahu to begin negotiations for the second phase of the Gaza ceasefire agreement. We fear that the occupation will take advantage of Trump’s statements to intensify the Gaza siege and starvation policy against its residents.”
Hamas-led Palestinian terrorists started the war in Gaza on Oct. 7, 2023, when they invaded, southern Israel, murdered 1,200 people, and kidnapped 251 hostages. Israel responded with a military campaign aimed at freeing the captives and dismantling Hamas’s military and governing capabilities in neighboring Gaza.
Fighting stopped when the ceasefire went into effect on Jan. 19.
Israel recently presented Hamas with a proposal for an extension of the ongoing Gaza ceasefire and hostage-release deal. The proposal would mandate that Hamas release half of the remaining Israeli hostages who were kidnapped into Gaza at the beginning of the extension. The rest of the hostages would be released at the end, if Hamas and Israel can agree on a permanent ceasefire deal. Israel would retain the right to restart the war in Gaza if negotiations are unsuccessful by the 42-day mark.
According to Jerusalem, the ceasefire extension proposal was the brainchild of US President Donald Trump’s Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff.
However, Hamas has refused to extend the first phase of the ceasefire deal, leading Israel to announce that it would block humanitarian aid transfers into Gaza to pressure the terrorist group into accepting the ceasefire extension.
Hamas is believed to still have 24 living hostages taken in the Oct. 7, 2023, attack, including Israeli-American Edan Alexander. It is also holding the bodies of 34 others who were either killed in the initial attack or in captivity, as well as the remains of a soldier killed in the 2014 Israel-Hamas war.
Under Trump, the White House has prioritized the release of Israeli hostages during the opening weeks of the new administration. Last month, Trump vowed to let “hell break out” in Gaza if Hamas did not release the remaining hostages.
“As far as I’m concerned, if all of the hostages aren’t returned by Saturday at 12 o’clock … I would say, cancel it [the hostage deal] and all bets are off and let hell break out,” Trump said at the time,
The Trump administration has also started direct communications with Hamas, a designated terrorist organization, over the release of US hostages in Gaza.
“When it comes to the negotiations … the special envoy who’s engaged in those negotiations does have the authority to talk to anyone,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said on Wednesday. “Israel was consulted on this matter. Dialogue and talking to people around the world to do what’s in the best interest of the American people, is something that the president has proven, what he believes is good-faith effort to do what’s right for the American people.”
According to reports, US special envoy for hostage affairs Adam Boehler has been leading the discussions with Hamas in Doha, Qatar. The talks have mainly focused on securing the release of American hostages still in Hamas captivity. However, Hamas and US officials have also reportedly discussed brokering an agreement to release all remaining hostages in the enclave.
The post Hamas Dismisses Trump Threat, Says Hostages Will Only Be Released With Lasting Ceasefire first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login